I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Heritage Advisory Panel will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Tuesday, 23
May 2017
5.30pm
Level 2
Reception Lounge
Town Hall
Auckland
|
|
Heritage Advisory Panel
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Mike Lee
|
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
Sherry Reynolds
|
|
|
Members
|
Elizabeth Aitken-Rose
|
|
|
|
Graeme Burgess
|
|
|
|
John Burns
|
|
|
|
Leyton Chan
|
|
|
|
Helen Geary
|
|
|
|
Rau Hoskins
|
|
|
|
Sally Hughes
|
|
|
|
Allan Matson
|
|
|
|
Jane Matthews
|
|
|
|
Dr Ann McEwan
|
|
|
|
Claudia Page
|
|
|
|
Bill Rayner
|
|
|
|
David Veart
|
|
|
|
Lorraine Wilson
|
|
(Quorum 10 members)
|
|
|
Tam White
Senior Governance Advisor
18 May 2017
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156
Email: tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Purpose
·
Provide advice to the council in
relation to:
- the
direction and content of strategies, policies and initiatives
- any matter that the panel
considers to be of particular interest or concern to the historic heritage of
Auckland
·
To deliver advice for improving
the promotion and management of historic heritage of the Auckland region
·
Advise Auckland Council on council
processes and mechanisms for engagement with the historic heritage community,
including owners of heritage buildings in Auckland.
·
To recommend historic heritage
expert membership and provide advice to the Auckland Urban Design Panel.
Scope
To provide a forum for the consideration of issues affecting
historic heritage of the Auckland region and provide advice to the council.
Priorities
The priorities for the panel include:
- Historic Heritage Plan
- Issues relating to the Unitary Plan
- Council processes
- Input into the Auckland Urban Design Panel.
Membership
The panel’s spokesperson is its chairperson.
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
23 May 2017
|
|
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 5
2 Declaration of
Interest 5
3 Confirmation
of Minutes 5
4 Extraordinary
Business 5
5 Auckland Plan
Refresh -Presentation 7
6 Heritage
Festival 19
7 Report back on
mechanisms available to purchase a heritage place 21
8 Heritage
Manager Update 25
9 Consideration
of Extraordinary Items
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
2 Declaration
of Interest
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a
conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external intere
st they might
have.
3 Confirmation
of Minutes
|
That the Heritage Advisory Panel:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 as a true and
correct record.
|
4 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“An item
that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by
resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member
explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
(i) The
reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the
discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“Where an
item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed
at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor
matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member
explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the
public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or
recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to
a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
23 May 2017
|
|
Auckland
Plan Refresh -Presentation
File No.: CP2017/08984
Purpose
1. To
inform the Panel on matters relating to the Auckland Plan refresh and to seek
initial comments.
Executive
summary
2. Richard
Hughes from the Auckland Plan team will provide a presentation on the refresh
process and will be seeking the Panels input. In order to assist there are 2
attachments:
· A
timeline
· Work
Stream summaries
|
Recommendation/s
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive
the report and presentation.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩ 
|
Auckland Plan Refresh Timeline
|
9
|
|
b⇩ 
|
Work Stream summaries
|
11
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Duguid – General Manager Plans and Places
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
23 May 2017
|
|
|
Heritage Advisory
Panel
23 May 2017
|
|
|
Heritage Advisory
Panel
23 May 2017
|
|
Heritage Festival
File No.: CP2017/08865
Purpose
1. To
get feedback from the Panel on the Auckland Heritage Festival and how it can be
improved.
Executive
summary
2. The
Auckland Heritage Festival is an amalgamation of a number of legacy council
heritage festivals, ranging from a daylong event through to a two week long
festival. These legacy festivals were held on various dates throughout the
calendar year.
3. In
2011, the festival was delivered by Auckland
Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) and the festival was opened on 18 September to commemorate
Auckland’s Founding Day, running for 2 weeks (including 2 weekends).
4. In
2012, the festival came to the Auckland Council’s Events team to
administer as a regional event. The festival built upon the foundation
and enthusiasm of the legacy council’s heritage celebrations and expanded
council’s inaugural heritage festival of 2011, to encompass a broader
regional focus.
5. Since
it has been administered by council the following changes have been
implemented:
· The festival was
moved to coincide with the September/October school
holidays to encourage more participation from families.
· The festival has
been extended to include a third weekend.
· With
the purpose of providing some direction for the festival and initially with the
intent of aligning with council’s heritage objectives, it was considered
appropriate to introduce more defined categories for the selection of events to
be included in the festival programme. The 2012 festival had three key categories
or themes:
1. Themed
Event: a special themed event.
2. Learning
and Encouragement: events that are designed to upskill and inform the local
community and encourage greater understanding of our heritage through workshops
and lectures – the “how to” of heritage.
3. Celebration
of Heritage: events that celebrate Tāmaki
Makaurau /
Auckland’s distinctive built, cultural and natural heritage.
· To ensure alignment with the festival’s direction and to
support manageable growth, an expression of interest process was introduced and
all proposed events were assessed against criteria. While aspects of the
existing criteria were not new to the management of the festival, an additional
level of rigour was added to the process – all events were assessed by
the Heritage Unit. Entry into the festival was not automatic.
· There
has been increasing focus from council on marketing the festival.
· There
has been some structure imposed, with the marketing highlighting various
categories – entertainment, demonstrations, workshops, tours,
talk’s, walks, seminars and displays.
· The
John Logan Campbell talk has been introduction prior to the commencement of the
festival.
· A
debrief and thank you is held with contributors after the conclusion of the
festival.
6. Issues
that have emerged:
· The
festival is growing each year with more and more events are being delivered.
This places pressure on the festivals budget and resources.
· The
festival is seen as being delivered by council whereas events are put on by the
community, with council’s role being administrative and primarily limited
to marketing the festival.
· It
is difficult to identify the success of festival as there is no routine,
independent survey of participates and contributors. There is no accurate
record of attendance nor is there any assessment of the quality of individual
events.
· Regardless
of the rigor around the expression of interest process, some events have turned
out to be business as usual, with the festival seen as an opportunity to
advertise.
· The
events are predominantly attended and delivered by an older audience,
notwithstanding council’s recent efforts to engage with youth.
· While
improving, the events within the festival are still
centred on the Central City/North Shore areas.
· The
events put on by council are predominantly those by libraries and interested
staff as individuals. There is no signature council event except the opening
ceremony - the connection between the festival and the John Logan Campbell talk
is not clear.
7. With
the festival getting larger, it is a good time to take
stock and consider if any changes should be made, so early feedback from the
Panel would assist.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive
this report.
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Duguid – General Manager Plans and Places
|
|
Heritage Advisory
Panel
23 May 2017
|
|
Report back on mechanisms available to purchase a
heritage place
File No.: CP2017/08884
Purpose
1. To
report back, as requested, on the potential mechanisms available to the Council
to purchase a property to ensure its ongoing heritage protection and
conservation.
Executive
summary
2. At
its February meeting the Panel received a presentation from Penny Laybourn,
Chair of the New Lynn Protection Society in regards to the St Andrews Sunday
School Hall.
3. In
response to that presentation the Panel requested that council explore legal
and commercial options to secure the heritage values of the building.
4. In
regards to the St Andrews Sunday School Hall to a large extent council has
already explored commercial options with the difficulty being the price being
sought by the owner.
5. Officers have discussed the matter with Councils internal legal team
who have identified three options available to the Council if it is seeking to
purchase a property to ensure its ongoing heritage protection and conservation.
Council purchases the property.
6. This
is the obvious and most straightforward option. In order to facilitate this
option the Council established the Built Heritage Acquisition fund. Once the
Council owns the property, it could place an instrument on the title requiring
its conservation before on-selling, as well as potentially restricting any
future alterations and/or use. This option is not viable in cases where the
owner is unwilling to sell or where the sale price does not reflect the market
value of the site.
7. Where the owner is unwilling to sell or the price being sought is
unrealistic, there is no legal ability for the Council to compulsorily acquire
the land for the purpose of conserving the property. Further, any attempt to
‘persuade’ the owner to sell with the use of a heritage order would
not be lawful.
Collaborative project with other parts
of Council.
8. Another
avenue that could be explored is a collaborative project, advanced by other
parts of the Council. As an example, a mixed ‘urban renewal’
development of a property, incorporating a public work such as the provision of
housing on the balance of the property, along with the conservation of a
heritage place.
9. Such
a collaborative project may provide the ability to compulsorily acquire the
property under the Public Works Act. If the property is compulsorily acquired
for a public work, it cannot then be then on-sold for another purpose.
10. A
collaborative project would be most appropriately advanced by Panuku, given
their familiarity with the issues that arise with these types of projects. Such
a project would need to make commercial sense to be viable and may not meet the
required threshold given the costs associated with conservation and the
predominance of other (and larger) projects currently being undertaken by
Panuku.
Seek legislative change.
11. An
approach could be made to central government to seek legislative change to
provide the Council the ability to compulsorily acquire a property for the
purpose of ensuring ongoing heritage protection and conservation of the place.
12. There are difficulties with this approach given the aversion by the government
to interfere with private property rights. There would also be difficulties in
terms of identifying the point at which properties would become subject to this
power i.e. how neglected/damaged would a heritage place need to be for the
Council to be justified in using the powers.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive
the report.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Letter to Mayor Phil Goff re St Andrews Sunday School
Hall
|
23
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Duguid – General Manager Plans and Places
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
23 May 2017
|
|
|
Heritage Advisory
Panel
23 May 2017
|
|
Heritage Manager Update
File No.: CP2017/08875
Purpose
1. To
raise issues of potential interest to Panel members
Executive
summary
2. Issues
raised by Panel members:
Helen Geary has raised the following
matter;
Re the heritage section on the council
website
I’ve being looking for the list of
scheduled built heritage, as I’m writing a submission on a notified
demolition consent for St James Church Hall in Esplanade Rd, Mt Eden. Now, with
help of knowledgeable professionals, I found it in the depths of the Unitary
Plan. The average punter would never know to look there, and there’s no
mention of it on the website heritage section.
I think there should be a straightforward
link and page in the heritage section of the website to directly access this
list.
There is a quick link to the fabulous
cultural heritage section – built heritage needs the same easy access.
3. Heritage
Unit Work Programme
Housing NZ appealed against the Councils decision to
reject the Independent Hearings Panel recommendation relating to the Regional
Policy Statement Objectives on Special Character. The hearing is scheduled for
the 27th and 28th June.
Council’s evidence consists of:
· Deborah
Rowe (Planning)
· Antony
Matthews (Heritage)
· Lisa
Mein (Character)
Housing New Zealand’s evidence
comprises:
· Amelia Linzey (Planning)
· Cherie Lane (Planning)
· Philip Osborne (Economics)
· Brendon Liggett (HNZC)
There are S274 parties involved. Those in support of the
Council, Ms Arlov and Mr Jones will not be calling evidence,
and will adopt the Council's evidence. We are yet to hear from Mr Enright as to
whether the Character Coalition will be calling any evidence. We have not
received evidence from those S274 parties who oppose Councils position.
The Council is currently considering
whether to call rebuttal evidence.
4.
Smith and Caughey Unitary Plan Appeal.
The appeal relates to the pre-1940 building demolition
control within the Queen Street Valley Precinct, City Centre. The appeal
was filed in the Environment Court by Smith and Caughey Limited and sought to
delete the pre-1940 building demolition control from the entire Queen Street
Valley Precinct.
Staff met with the delegated members of the
Planning Committee on 15 December 2016. At that meeting, they updated the
delegated members on without prejudice discussions that had taken place with
representatives of Smith and Caughey Limited. Smith and Caughey Limited
had offered to settle its appeal if its buildings were excluded from the
pre-1940 control, except for the Lippincott façade on Queen
Street. Staff sought the delegated members' authority to agree to this
proposed settlement.
At that time the delegated members did not
consider the Council had sufficient heritage evidence to justify departing from
the Council's position to defend its decision. The delegated members
resolved that the “Council defend the Governing Body decision retaining
the pre-1940 building demolition control provisions within the Queen Street
Valley Precinct, City Centre zone”.
After the meeting with the delegated
members, and given that there was no internal heritage advice that supported
the delegated committees decision, staff engaged Graeme Burgess, an external
heritage architecture expert, to independently review and consider whether the
pre-1940 control should apply to the Smith and Caughey buildings, in particular
the Civic Tavern at the corner of Queen Street and Wellesley Street.
Mr Burgess’ assessment was that the
heritage and character elements of the Civic Tavern have been significantly
compromised by changes to the building over time. His view was that the
Civic Tavern's contribution to the Queen Street Valley precinct and city
streetscape within its context is limited. In his opinion, the Lippincott
façade facing Queen Street provides the greatest contribution to the
city streetscape and amenity.
After a further report to the full Planning
committee the committee resolved to settle the appeal. As the matter is no
longer confidential included in this agenda are copies of the Planning
committee agenda item and relevant attachments.
Heritage evaluations: Work is continuing to advance the errors plan change and the
heritage evaluations as mentioned at the February Panel meeting.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Heritage Advisory
Panel:
a) receive
the report.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Planning Committee report. Appeal
|
27
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Duguid – General Manager Plans and Places
|
|
Heritage
Advisory Panel
23 May 2017
|
|
